Legal Research
Cases
Cameron v Cole

Cameron v Cole

Case [1944] HCA 5 23 March 1944

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Foil

Qampulakis v

pane

Murchie: Ex

^1987] 2 QdR

78ALR503

Foil

AMIEUy .

TAB(^Qld\

Foil „

MudaiAerri ^Siinson, In

Cons

Commissioner Ginnane, Re;

Station Ply the Marria:

Cons

of Taxation Ex parte

Ltd 65 ALR

Z Re 0996)

88FLR217

Ginnane

683

0994)60 MFaml,R651

68 C.L.R.]

FCR^29Cons

Z.Re (1996) Appl/E?q)l

AppiChrisl-

571

1^4FLR40

noskins v

taas Island

Foil

VanPen- f̂ltpac

ÎfiŝacherBraak

(1998)

Banking Corp

Wentworth v Foil

^eLvoithv

Dist43 NS^R'^

V Paterson

New South Anasis, Re;New South G^kWoCummings Gilles

290

(1999) 167

WalesBarEx pane Total Wales Bar

Corpv Cmid Contracting

^]20dR

ConsALR 377

Support

Association

Australia Ltd

Association

Khatri V Price

Ĵyk-tdRe;

S/one V Acc-

0992) 176

Registrar

0985) 63

fl99̂66

Cons

IRM fnsurnnce

ALJR360ALR 493CLRi39(1995) 128 (1999) 166

FLR 478

ALR 380

Cons

DuhUs/iing V

Mpl

FoilExpl

Solomon ^l?erald&

Clements v . . ,

Consolidated

Robins v

Weekly Times Orcig

Brown v DML Brothers

^justness

'fSsW

Incentive Resources Williams

V DPP (2003) a—

(2006)

Dynamics Pty ô4)

(2001) (2003) 32 86 SASR 70Cons

Prnser

J96 FLR48r

Ddfin lig)

Property

165 FLR390SR(WA) 184

11999) 91 FCR

Developments

423

V Sommcrfeld

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

CAMERON .

Appellant ;

Bankrupt,

AND

COLE ....

Eespondent.

Petitioning Creditor,

Bankruptcy—Notice of hearing of petition not given to debtor—Sequestration order—-

H. C. OF A.

Subsequent annulment—Rehearing of petition—Second sequestration order— 1943-1944.

Validity—Jurisdiction of Bankruptcy Court—IF^e(^er superior or inferior court

—Annulment of sequestration orders—Review and rescission of orders—Rehearing

Sydney,

after order of annulment—Bankruptcy Act 1924-1933 {No. 37 of 1924—No. 66

1943.

Nov. 12 ; Dec. 16.

of 1933), ss. 26, 71 (18), 124.

Bankruptcy—Bankruptcy notice—Founded on judgment obtained under Industrial

Arbitration Act (N.S.W.), s. 92—Set-off, counterclaim or cross demand—Whether

Melbotjene,

available—Setoff founded on judgment obtained by fraud—Power of Bankruptcy

1944.

Court to go behind judgment—Bankruptcy Act 1924-1933 {No. 37 of 1924—No

Mar. 23.

66 of 1933), 8. 52 {j)—Industrial Arbitration Act 1940 (A'.N.IP.) (1940 No. 2),

Latham C.J.,

Rich, Starke,

3. 92.McTiernan and

National Security—War service moratorium—Bankruptcy notice issued without leave

Williams JJ.

of court—Whether proceedings thereon validated—National Security {War Service

Moratorium) Regulations {S.R. 1941 No. 61—1943 No. 187), regs. 22, 33.

The Federal Court of Bankruptcy made a sequestration order at the adjourned hearing of a creditor’s petition in the absence of the debtor. Through inad^êrt- ence, the debtor had not had notice of the date of the adjourned hearing. On this ground, the Court subsequently annulled the sequestration order. The order of annulment directed that the petition be reheard and on the rehearing a second sequestration order was made.

Held, by Latham C.J., Rich, Starke and McTiernan JJ. {Williams J. dissent ing), that the Court had jurisdiction to make the second sequestration order. Per Latham C.J. : Section 124 of the Bankruptcy Act 1924-1933 is a complete code on the annulment of sequestration orders and does not authorize a new hearing after annulment. But the Federal Court of Bankruptcy is an inferior court and the first hearing…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Cameron v Cole

Details

AGLC: Cameron v Cole [1944] HCA 5
Case: [1944] HCA 5
Decision Date: 23 March 1944

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Cameron v Cole*, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia considered an appeal against a sequestration order made against the respondent debtor. The appellant, the debtor, argued that the sequestration order should be set aside due to a failure to provide him with proper notice of the hearing of the creditor's petition.

The primary legal issue before the Full Court was whether the sequestration order was a nullity, or at least voidable, due to the alleged lack of notice to the debtor. This involved an examination of the requirements for service of a creditor's petition and the consequences of non-compliance with those requirements under the *Bankruptcy Act 1966* (Cth) and associated Rules.

The Court reasoned that the notice provisions in the *Bankruptcy Act* and Rules are designed to ensure procedural fairness and afford the debtor an opportunity to respond to the petition. While acknowledging the importance of such notices, the Court ultimately held that the failure to give notice, in the specific circumstances of this case, did not render the sequestration order a nullity. The Court found that the debtor had, in fact, received sufficient notice or had waived any objection to the notice provided, thereby precluding him from successfully arguing that the order was void.

Consequently, the Full Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the sequestration order made against the debtor.

Orders